Picture of the day

The effective range of the 1940 arm...?

According to the U. S. Army's Basic Field Manual FM 23-75, 37-MM Gun, M1916, dated 1940 the maximum range is 4000 yards (3657.6 m)(2.3 miles) and the maximum effective range is 1000 yards (914.4 m)(.6 miles). That is just a little further than a hand grenade or rifle grenade can be thrown or launched.

1940, eh? When men were men! Show me the infantryman today who can throw a hand grenade just a little less than 1,000 yards, and I'll show you an Ubermensch on performance-enhancing superdrugs! :bsFlag::)
 
Same caliber, next war...

37mm%20and%2030%20cal%20on%20jeep.jpg
 
Was it 'hit or miss'?

That Typhoon certainly looks like a formidable ground attack/anti-tank weapon. I've read a lot of the hype & hoopla surrounding the Typhoons' efficacy, but I wonder how many of those rockets hit their targets and how much of the fireworks were just shown as morale boosters for the troops?
I recently read an account written by a Sherman tank commander during the Bulge who nearly fell victim to an unintended Typhoon attack. He wrote that he saw the plane closing and felt the rockets zoom by, but they missed. Twice. Following the first failed attack the plane circled back and dove a second time, again with the same result.
I'm wondering now if this was fairly typical of those attacks. Surely every attack did not result in a destroyed Panzer, but what was their true kill ratio
really like? Hits vs misses.
 
I have often wondered the same thing. i read a report about the Falaise gap and it indicated that very few enemy tans were found to have been hit by aircraft.

As in all shooting events, a few are stars and most are mediocre.
 
I'm a fan of the Typhoon (or any Hawker product), everrything I've read suggests they were just as effective as any other ground attack aircraft the allies had.
There are some gun camera films floating around the net that show some hits on vehicles and/or secondary explosions after a rocket run.

When I was a kid I built lots of scale models of WWII armor and aircraft, my granddad who was a Calgary Highlander and only talked about the war a little came into my room once while I was building either a Sherman or Typhoon. His comment was:"the only time they ever had armor support when they needed it some Shermans came along, not long after some Typhoons came along and blew up the Sherman's". He was not a big fan.
 
You got to remember, the Allies had lots and lots of Typhoons and the German had didn't have that many tanks. About 8,000 (Tiger I/II and Panthers) divide between two fronts. Some where around 3,300 Typhoons were built. It looks like 16 rocket per aircraft or roughly 52,000 rockets. You launch that many rockets you are bound to hit something even if it is one of your own.
 
You got to remember, the Allies had lots and lots of Typhoons and the German had didn't have that many tanks. About 8,000 (Tiger I/II and Panthers) divide between two fronts. Some where around 3,300 Typhoons were built. It looks like 16 rocket per aircraft or roughly 52,000 rockets. You launch that many rockets you are bound to hit something even if it is one of your own.

Uhm, that's 52,000 rockets only if you use each Typhoon once and throw it away. If you start reloading them for multiple sorties per day, on the other hand, you can quite quickly boost that into the hundreds of thousands of rockets.

And when considering the 'hit vs. miss' ratio, you also have to consider that, unlike the modern Hellfire anti-tank missiles that the Apache helicopters shoot, the Typhoons' rockets were stone-simple unguided versions. So on the one hand, they didn't have individual guidance to the target, which lowers the hit ratio considerably. Instead of "locking on", you more just lined up the nose of the plane with your target, flew in line until you thought you had the intersecting angle right, then hit the switch and fired a multiple-rocket 'area effect volley' in the hopes that at least one would hit.

On the other hand, those individually-guided "target-locked" modern Hellfires cost $110,000 a shot, so a decent hit ratio kind of matters. The Typhoon rockets, by contrast, were not just stone-simple but also dead cheap. Probably cost about the same as a heavy artillery shell in manufacturing time, money and resources, so there was really little reason to worry about 'hit ratios' with them, anymore than with the artillery shells in a barrage.

And, of course, for the same reason, they weren't restricted solely to use on tanks and similar 'high value' targets. The Typhoons hit barges and ships, trains, train tracks, bridges, truck convoys on roads, pillboxes, buildings that seemed to hold concentrations of troops, etc etc etc. IIRC, the basic rule was that you didn't return from a sortie with rockets still attached to your wings...
 
Last edited:
Exactly. And by the summer of '44, the Germans were using their tanks more and more with infantry closely supporting them for protection from man portable anti tank devices. Thus a barrage of rockets also has the chance of killing anyone around the tank.
 
There was a comment in this thread many posts ago (or another thread?) where a CGN'er recounted a family member telling how they used the rockets, they'd walk onto target with the machine gun and tracers, and when they were just about to be on target, they'd fire the rockets. Considering how stationary a ground target would be, even moving at "speed", that approach would likely have a good hit ratio.
 
FW 189:

Focke-Wulf-Fw-189-1(H).32-(V7+1J)-Finland-1943-02.jpg


Trim wee bird.

Just got back from Seattle and watching this fly at the Flying Heritage Collection:

FockeWulfFW190A51-7.jpg


That was last Saturday. If erection lasts longer than a week, seek medical attention...
 
A six inch high explosive shell does not require pin-point accuracy to have a lethal effect. As was often pointed out at the time, the 8 rockets off a Typhoon were the equivalent of a broadside from a cruiser. You can see from watching the films how difficult it must have been to achieve high accuracy with those rockets. Specialized sights would have helped, but I don't believe any were issued. The RAF hated doing ground support anyway, and fought tooth and nail against the use of resources for that or convoy protection if it meant taking anything away from strategic bombing of Germany. The flyboys were sure they could win the war all by themselves, or at least many of their leaders were.
 
Last edited:
If I'm not mistaken that FW 190 is a home built 2/3 scale repro. Beautiful plane no matter what it is.

According the Heritage Collection website:

This aircraft: This Fw 190 was built in 1943 and factory-modified for ground attack duties. Fighting on the Eastern Front, the aircraft was assigned to Jagdgeschwader (fighter wing) 54 near Leningrad. On July 9, 1943, while attacking a Soviet supply train, the plane crashed. The pilot became a prisoner in Russia, but his plane remained untouched and hidden by acres of impassable wetland and a growing forest of young saplings.

The amazingly intact plane was discovered by a warbird hunter in the late 1980s and was carefully dismantled and airlifted with a helicopter. In England and later in the U.S., the fighter underwent an extensive restoration process. Today, the plane is the only original flyable Focke-Wulf 190A fighter to take to the skies with a genuine BMW 801 engine.
 
Oh, it's the real deal:

[youtube]EPmdU2EwRwg[/youtube]

Also, this, excavated from a beach in France:

[youtube]VtXU9vWVu7M[/youtube]

And while they don't fly it due to its uniqueness, they also have this, the only remaining 190D:

FockeWulfFw190D-13Dora-03.jpg


It's a feckin' amazing place. If you like warbirds, this is Mecca.
 
Here’s a great snap taken during the Battle of Kursk in July, 1943. It’s is a Panzer Mk III, the original German MBT
(‘medium’) with the long-barrelled 5cm gun. By the time of Kursk this model was obsolete and no match for the Russian T-34.
Note the column of smoke rising in the background.
The markings and the tall radio antenna suggest this was a commo tank used for relaying radio messages between HQ and the front.
Bundesarchiv_Bild_101III-Zschaeckel-208-25_Schlacht_um_Kursk_Panzer_III-1.jpg


And what a picture of the crew, frozen in time! I’ve been studying this for a while, and here’s what I’ve deduced:
Left to right:
1) Driver—He’s the one with the greasy coveralls.
2) Radio operator—Typically the crew dogsbody/gofer when not operating radio or bow MG.
3) He’s the Commander—He’s the oldest and most experienced. He’s smiling, but he looks like he’s got the weight
of the world on his shoulders.
4) Gunner—He’s the one stuck way down inside the turret when the shooting starts, and he needs to be a good one if they
are to survive. He and the driver have been with the commander since ‘39 and have seen most of Europe through their
vision blocks.
5) Loader—Responsible for care and feeding of the main gun and the coax mg. Also the radioman’s assistant when the
crap jobs are handed out. These two guys are the youngest-- no doubt replacements for two erstwhile members who
became casualties. Every member of the crew will learn everyone else’s job; ‘promotions’ usually occurred when other
members were killed or wounded.
I located a German historian whose specialty is researching old pics and documents. He would be able to give me a lot more
information about what’s contained in this pic—the unit these men were in and maybe a bit about who they were and what
became of them, but it would cost me more money than I’m prepared to spend in order to find out.

It is hard to believe 5 men could fit in that little tank. I would think most of the time the driver is the only one doing anything. The rest must just sit and pick their nose. I guess the commander gets to look around and give the odd order, turn left or stop.
 
Likely that tank was carrying an extra person in the form of a radio operator? I would think it would normally be manned by a driver, gunner, loader, commander. All would have cross training on some level other than the radio operator.
 
Back
Top Bottom